Page 6 of 13
Re: CB handhelds, why so expensive.
Posted: 06 Mar 2025, 06:37
by scanhermit
The stock antenna on the thunderpole tx seems pretty good imo
.
I've seen ranges of 5-22 miles obtained with it on YouTube vids but my experience is that it's only good within a mile. Admittedly I've mainly tested against a shortwave portable and a scanner indoors (scanner in loft) so it's not comparable with an external antenna. With the scanner in the loft I wasn't legible beyond two or three hundred yards.
As I say, I might have the runt of the litter though.
Re: CB handhelds, why so expensive.
Posted: 06 Mar 2025, 21:48
by scanhermit
Tactical antenna:
With scanner in the loft I couldn't hit it from 0.6 mile. Much housing in between.
With scanner in the kitchen window with some housing but mostly open field in between (distance 0.4 mile) my voice was quiet with much hash on 4W. With 446 on stock antenna and 0.5W I can make the trip with no difficulty.
Given that others praise the radio and the stock antenna but I can't even get a decent result over 0.4 mile with the tactical I'm wondering if the handset is not working properly.
I know that CB handheld antennas do not generally perform well but given that others have got decent distances with this model and stock antenna I can't help wondering about the radio.
A better test would be to someone with a twig on their chimney.
Edit: I've been testing on AM. Testing just within the house AM sounds buzzy and crap. FM sounds much cleaner so I might re-run the scanner test on FM
Re: CB handhelds, why so expensive.
Posted: 06 Mar 2025, 23:16
by dc260
scanhermit wrote: 06 Mar 2025, 21:48
Tactical antenna:
With scanner in the loft I couldn't hit it from 0.6 mile. Much housing in between.
With scanner in the kitchen window with some housing but mostly open field in between (distance 0.4 mile) my voice was quiet with much hash on 4W. With 446 on stock antenna and 0.5W I can make the trip with no difficulty.
Given that others praise the radio and the stock antenna but I can't even get a decent result over 0.4 mile with the tactical I'm wondering if the handset is not working properly.
I know that CB handheld antennas do not generally perform well but given that others have got decent distances with this model and stock antenna I can't help wondering about the radio.
A better test would be to someone with a twig on their chimney.
Edit: I've been testing on AM. Testing just within the house AM sounds buzzy and crap. FM sounds much cleaner so I might re-run the scanner test on FM
Do keep in mind that many wideband scanners are not specifically tuned to receive 27 Mhz, you might hear some skip conditions but it doesn't mean it's sensitive, I wonder if you would get a different result using a 27 mhz radio as a receiver. Also remember AM will not work as well as FM.
Re: CB handhelds, why so expensive.
Posted: 07 Mar 2025, 06:32
by scanhermit
Do keep in mind that many wideband scanners are not specifically tuned to receive 27 Mhz, you might hear some skip conditions but it doesn't mean it's sensitive, I wonder if you would get a different result using a 27 mhz radio as a receiver. Also remember AM will not work as well as FM.
Thanks, this makes sense. I wasn't on AM in my CB youth so have no experience of the difference between the two on CB. But it's hard not to get disheartened when I read posts like this [nicked from the Charlie Tango forum].
I bought this radio about a week ago and have had a good few contacts. I bought the telescopic antenna for it and was up the Pentland Hills (two miles west of Edinburgh) at about 900 feet and reached a guy I know who was 42 miles away. Mind you he was static mobile in the hills above Perth and was also at around 1,000 feet. I've also been down by the sea and made an 8 mile contact across Edinburgh and a few others across into Fife that is 7 or 8 miles away. If you're willing to get out and about with this radio its well worth the money.
Re: CB handhelds, why so expensive.
Posted: 08 Mar 2025, 00:40
by scanhermit
The verdict: the tactical is not as good as the stock antenna. I stood on a hill five miles from the nearest station. I couldn't break in with either antenna. I could hear on both but the stock ant had a 2db RX advantage over the tactical for the nearest station.
I drove to within a mile of the station and managed to break in. They graciously gave me reports on both twigs on high and low power. The stock ant was better on both signal and audio.
I relocated to a hill close by and could be heard clearly on the stock at 2 miles and barely at 4.5 miles. I didn't bother with the tactical, which I suppose will make a nice support for a growing plant.
Re: CB handhelds, why so expensive.
Posted: 08 Mar 2025, 02:08
by Tin soldier
Personally I like the AM frequency.
Re: CB handhelds, why so expensive.
Posted: 08 Mar 2025, 10:06
by Mudslinger
The AM band is good when it is quiet or if you are in a remote location. It does quickly fill up with skip and other random noises though making it difficult to use for anything other than very close range.
Re: CB handhelds, why so expensive.
Posted: 08 Mar 2025, 10:58
by scanhermit
The hash doesn't seem as bad on AM, on the TX anyway, but I am in a quiet area.
Further thoughts - the TX is a good radio and the noise cancelling works very well. Attached to a decent antenna I can see it doing well.
Re: CB handhelds, why so expensive.
Posted: 08 Mar 2025, 23:55
by Tin soldier
Mudslinger wrote: 08 Mar 2025, 10:06
The AM band is good when it is quiet or if you are in a remote location. It does quickly fill up with skip and other random noises though making it difficult to use for anything other than very close range.
I always thought AM was better than FM for long range contacts. Less background noise but inferior transmit modulation voice sound.
I'll have to do some homework and learn a bit more .
Cheers
Re: CB handhelds, why so expensive.
Posted: 09 Mar 2025, 13:06
by scanhermit
Re: CB handhelds, why so expensive.
Posted: 09 Mar 2025, 14:08
by Mudslinger
You can buy a 7-10m fibreglass fishing pole for around £25-30.
Tape a home made T2LT onto it and you are ready to go.
Re: CB handhelds, why so expensive.
Posted: 09 Mar 2025, 19:13
by scanhermit
Now that opens a whole new world. Do I want a medium or fast action rod?
Being serious, if I wanted to stick a 1/4 wave whip plus ground plane rods on a fishing pole, would it wave around all over the place?
Re: CB handhelds, why so expensive.
Posted: 10 Mar 2025, 17:35
by Mudslinger
As long as it doesn't have any carbon in it I would go for as fact action as you can to prevent it whipping around too much. I would guess a 1/4 would work, but you may as well stick with a T2LT, they definitely work and are basially a centre fed 1/2 wave which should work better than a 1/4 ground plane.
Re: CB handhelds, why so expensive.
Posted: 10 Mar 2025, 21:15
by scanhermit
Aye, I was just thinking of dual purposing a mobile whip.
Delta loops look exciting but I'm getting ahead of myself - I need to make a simple wire work first.
Re: CB handhelds, why so expensive.
Posted: 11 Mar 2025, 04:28
by scanhermit
Mudslinger wrote: 10 Mar 2025, 17:35
As long as it doesn't have any carbon in it I would go for as fact action as you can to prevent it whipping around too much. I would guess a 1/4 would work, but you may as well stick with a T2LT, they definitely work and are basially a centre fed 1/2 wave which should work better than a 1/4 ground plane.
Sorry, to go back to this, do you mean don't get a carbon fibre rod?
Edit: Answered my own question - carbon fibres are slightly conductive - not good if I want to hang a wire down it.